Chris Morrison, University of Kent@cbowiemorrison @UKCopyrightLit

https://copyrightliteracy.org

http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/copyrightliteracykent/

Learning on Screen – Audiovisual in Education 2 December 2016

Lecture capture: risky business or evolving

open practice

The research team

Chris Morrison, University of Kent@cbowiemorrison

Dr Jane Secker, LSE@jsecker

Juliana Rios-Amaya,LSE

Report available online

Risky Business?

Risky Business, © 1983 Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman

Risky Business?

Risky Business, © 1983 Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman

Licence vs Exception

What?Why? How?

When? Survey devised by: Jane Secker, Chris Morrison, Philippa Hatch, Alex Fenlon, Charlotte Booth, Carol Summerside, Helen Cargill,

Phil Ansell and Scott McGowan

Lecture recording & IPR (intellectual property rights)

policies

Consent from individuals

Dealing with 3rd party copyright

Wider lecture recording issues

The issues

Yes - my institution has a

written policy29%

No - my institution has no

policy or documented approach to

lecture capture31%

Sort of - my institution has a

documented approach to lecture capture but it is not

expressed as a single formal policy

40%

Does your institution have a policy covering IPR issues with lecture recording? (N=35)

Headline findings

Academic consultationFigure 2: Did your institution consult widely with the academic community before introducing a policy or

approach to lecture recording? (n=35)

Opt-in vs opt-out

(n=35)

Individual consent

(n=35)

Responsibility for 3rd party copyright

The lecturer would be expected to observe copyright and can apply to the Copyright Clearance Service for advice.

3%

9%

18%

21%

94%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

School Administration Staff

Other

E-learning / VLE team

Compliance Officer / Team

Lecturer/presenter

Figure 8. Who takes responsibility for rights issues with content included in lectures? (n=35)

Dealing with third party copyright issues

7%

20%

30%

50%

50%

53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

They must not upload recordings includingthird party content to the VLE or similar

Other

They should rely on openly licensed / CreativeCommons materials only

They must edit problematic contentthemselves

They must always seek permissions for thirdparty content

They can rely on fair dealing exceptions

Figure 10. What advice do you give to lecturers using third party content? (n=30)

Responsibility for third party copyright

Yes3%

No

83%

No Answer14%

Figure 11. Do you, or any one else in the university, review lecturer recordings to identify content that is not permitted under UK copyright law or university

licences? (n=35)

Making staff aware of copyright issues

9%

18%

33%

73%

73%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

They are not made aware of these issues

It’s in the staff terms and conditions

They are provided with advice as part of staffinduction / training

Information is on the website

They are provided with advice as part ofagreeing to use the lecture recording system

Figure 9. How are staff made aware of copyright issues that mightarise in recording lectures? (n=35)

Wider IPR issues

Automated processes easier, but awareness of IPR is

low (IPAN, 2016)

Variety of attitudes to IPR/risk – what’s

acceptable?

Different issues for some disciplines

Is lecture capture different to other

VLE use?

Lecture capture is too new to be

considered in some policies

General academic resistance to lecture

capture

Policy analysis

Examined 11 institutions

Compared with Jisc guidance as a

benchmark

Looked only at what was provided (some policies are behind registration

walls)

Created 5 higher level and 12 lower

level categories

High level categories

Appetite for risk Support and guidance

Institutional control Open practice

Comprehensiveness of approach

Emerging patterns

Variety of approaches

No clear models as yet

Policy is not the same as practice

Jisc guidance not widely adopted

Support should be clear, helpful and practical

Institutional culture of risk difficult to determine

Open practice not widespread

Findings

Recommendations

Minimum standards in lecture recording policy should be adopted

Staff and students should be involved in policy development

Responsibility for managing risk should be clarified

Copyright advice and guidance should be provided

Institutional policies should refer to ‘open educational resources’

Further Research

Relationship between institutional approach to

risk and lecture recording

Understand optimum involvement of academic staff

Explore impact of copyright guidance and

assess levels of copyright literacy

Identify ways to engage with ‘open’ culture

alongside concerns over academic identities

Further reading

• IPAN (2016) University IP Policy: Perception and practice. Available at: http://www.ipaware.net/sites/default/files/IPAN_NUS_University_IP_Policy_v11-2r_online-mainr_28jul16.pdf

• Jisc (2015) Recording lectures: legal considerations. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/recording-lectures-legal-considerations

• Secker, J. & Morrison, C. 2016. Copyright and E-learning: a guide for practitioners, Second Edition. Facet Publishing, London. pp. 103-105.

• Secker, J., Bond, S., & Grussendorf, S. 2010. Lecture Capture: rich and strange, or a dark art? LSE Research Online. Available: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/29184

https://copyrightliteracy.org

Image Credits

Slide 3-4: Images from the 1983 film ‘Risky Business’, used under S.32 Illustration for Instruction, © Geffen Pictures, Dir. Paul Brickman

Slide 6: Contracts by NobMouse CC-BY https://flic.kr/p/7b8UG9

Slide 7: Camera operator setting up the video camera by jshawkinsCC-BY https://flic.kr/p/7prerh

Slide 21: Risk by Brad Clinesmith CC-BY-SA https://flic.kr/p/aWW978

Slide 24: Facet Publishing

This presentation is © Chris Morrison, Jane Secker & Juliana Rios Amaya and is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence

https://copyrightliteracy.org